I agree, in the current climate a normal person could never be expected to make the correct choice on what their best interests are. To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here.

Rampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful.

Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.

That would be the safest way if we don't want Trump or Putin propaganda to win.

Sure — as my friend likes to say, "Democracy is the rule of the democrats". Recent developments have proven him right.

It's the paradox of tolerance or whatever, we're seeing that free speech and open elections have allowed the intolerant / autocrats to take over and take away those liberties, which implies that in order to have stopped them, they shouldn't have had those rights.

One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years.

Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.

Many people in the "Western Civilization" seem to agree with that stance. Sad but true.

Er, actually it does mean that.