I've always wondered: is there a paper/thesis somewhere suggesting a better alternative to democracy? I don't mean the usual (monarchy, dictatorship, etc), but rather something entirely new. I imagine there must be at least one political sciences/philosophy student somewhere who gave this a thought, but I never found anything.
There's demarchy - a random sampling of the population. Like democracy, it ensures that people have a way to change laws they don't like. Unlike democracy, it doesn't suffer from the fact that the corrupt or power hungry rise to the top. Lobbyists would have less power. There are also some suggestions that a random sampling of a population will lead to a better selection mechanism - similar to suggestions that promot…
I don't see any reason to believe that is true in any substantive way. Most of the corrupting and influence mechanisms that work in democracy work in demarchy, and some are cheaper. OTOH, there's an entirely new corruption mechanism introduced, corrupting the “random” selection mechanism (either at the source or between the notional mechanism and the public reporting of results, which is ultimately what really matters).