The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.

The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.

"Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Locke and Hume, though, expected their citizens to assent to their rule through reason

I think the primary problem with American Democracy (and I think there are lots, I am, after all, something of a Monarchist) is that it is a hard and set two-party system. Because of first across the post voting, third party candidates have almost zero chance of winning in any significant election.