Sure, but we vote with majority of uninformed voters.
So democracy has to relegate information to second place, and rely on emotion and narrative to motivate voters.
This doesn't mean democratic leaders can't separate campaign from implementation ( campaign on emotive issues, deliver substantive ones ), but it does make the whole trajectory subject to the gravitational downward pull of fickle/merit-less but emotionally compelling issues.
Hence democracies demonstrated inability to deliver long-term plans and rapid large changes. But technocracy beats democracy there -- there they really care about information at the state planning level.
Hence, say what you want about China's media/mass PR exercise, but look at their results. Go and see them for yourself.
Their system kills a democratic system for delivering large meaningful changes.
And just ask FB. If FB was democratic, instead of autocratic/technocratic/data driven you really think they would be where they are now?
So why insist on it in government then, and pretend you are all so clever / right for doing so?
Seems to me you're just selling yourselves short-changed future in exchange for short-term feeling good about yourselves.
A poor and stupid bargain. But one you are happy with. Why? That's the question to investigate. The why. I think you've been sold on the idea of democracy because it's simply an effective means of keeping you all under control, and of maintaining the status quo so that nothing much ever changes -- and of amplifying and concentrating power in the unaccountable / secret / deep part of the state. You "feel" you have a voice, they give you an outlet, so you do nothing to uprise against it. Very effective control.
The architects of this idea must be laughing to see you all defending your system of bondage so hard. Socrates surely is laughing at you, too.