One thing I take issue with:
> This electoral democracy still excludes the poorest and least capable in our society, who cannot keep up to date with politics and make it to the polling station to actually cast a ballot.
We have to stop doing this. If we want to create some kind of common set of values that binds us together regardless of class, wealth, etc we also need to accept some things that we can collectively agree as positive or negative traits or values.
Too often, middle class people infantilise the working class, refuse to accept that they have agency, and ascribe their lives and behaviour to externalities and societal injustice. This doesn't help anyone, it just reinforces the division of society and stops us seeing our neighbour (regardless of class, wealth, etc) as essentially the same as us.
The poorest in our society can keep up-to-date with politics, and a lot of them do. All they need is a TV or radio, and the poorest in western society can get hold of one of these. If they don't, that's fine, I don't accept there's a moral imperative to do so if it's not your bag, but let's stop with this nonsense. Just go to hustings or the local meet of any political party and you'll meet people from all wealth brackets. Probably more of them poor than wealthy. So where does this idea that poor people can't keep up-to-date with politics come from? Any that want to can, and most do.
Similar sentiments like: poor people can't be expected to read books, or eat vegetables, or go for walks, or tell their kids to do their homework, or help their kids to read, etc, etc. None of these things require money. Oh, but what about the institutional injustices, and the ways in which our society is configured such that poor people do not benefit from having those values instilled? And the fact that money stresses preclude other less critical concerns finding a time or place? Sorry, that's middle-class well-meaning crap, and it's helping to destroy any kind of cohesive set of shared values we once had.