[“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Democracy simply doesn’t work.” – Kent Brockman] By Natalie Wolchover, Life’s Little Mysteries Staff Writer
28 February 2012 (LiveScience) – 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. 
As a result, no amount of information or facts about political candidates can override the inherent inability of many voters to accurately evaluate them. On top of that, “very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is,” Dunning told Life’s Little Mysteries. He and colleague Justin Kruger, formerly of Cornell and now of New York University, have demonstrated again and again that people are self-delusional when it comes to their own intellectual skills. Whether the researchers are testing people’s ability to rate the funniness of jokes, the correctness of grammar, or even their own performance in a game of chess, the duo has found that people always assess their own performance as “above average” — even people who, when tested, actually perform at the very bottom of the pile. [Incompetent People Too Ignorant to Know It] We’re just as undiscerning about the skills of others as about ourselves. “To the extent that you are incompetent, you are a worse judge of incompetence in other people,” Dunning said. In one study, the researchers asked students to grade quizzes that tested for grammar skill. “We found that students who had done worse on the test itself gave more inaccurate grades to other students.” Essentially, they didn’t recognize the correct answer even when they saw it. The reason for this disconnect is simple: “If you have gaps in your knowledge in a given area, then you’re not in a position to assess your own gaps or the gaps of others,” Dunning said. Strangely though, in these experiments, people tend to readily and accurately agree on who the worst performers are, while failing to recognize the best performers. […] Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger’s theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters’ own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won. Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they “effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders.” [more]
People Aren’t Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say
Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average. ~ Garrison Keillor
Democracy relies on the lowest common denominator to work.
Expecting anything more then this is foolhardy.
So, government with unelected leaders are a better option? I think not.
This article is intellectualism run wild. The idea that people as a whole are dumb, and, for the benefit of all, would be better server by more "competent" and intellectually superiour individuals. The U.S. is a representative government, not a democracy.
A pure democracy has some drawbacks – mainly that policy is set by popular vote. Populism can be a dangerous thing — see Germany leading up to WW-II.
As such, the U.S. has a representative government. It's one elected by the people, but where policy and laws are set based on the vote of some 600+ representative and senators. This design gives the best of both words. (1) publicly elected officials and (2) a representative form of government where the capricous masses don't make policy. This works!
The idea that the people are too "stupid" to elect their leaders is (1) insulting and (2) the height of arrogance.
There has never been an unelected goverment that provided security, freedom and a high standard of living to its citizens. Many of the states in the mid-East, the former soviet union, north korea, states in Africa, colonia england, the Ottoman Empire, and on, and on, and on….
A benevolent dictator would be nice. But, outside the theoretical world of idealism that the author of this article lives in, we all know that is just a hypothetical game of wishful thinking. Human nature does not produce benevolent, all-knowning and righouts leaders. We have to choose and elect those who can best represent us. I'd never what that right taken away.
I'll accept that there are less intellectually gifted individuals in socient and let them have their voice heard. Otherwise, having appointed leaders is a true travesty.
Just read a history book.