The British are Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it

Most modern democracies are representative democracies with aspects of direct democracy (in the form of referendums) using some sort of voting system. I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of a representative democracy, but that most problems arise from the way the voting system is commonly implemented.

As far as I know, all modern democracies implement their primary voting using votes with equal weight. Some democracies, like the United States, have a layer of indirection (the electoral college), but still their primary votes are all weighed equally. While all people should be equal in the eyes of the law and with regard to human rights, there are good arguments that political votes should not be equal. Even with an equal total say for all citizens, it should be possible to weigh different topics that they have a say in towards areas that they are best qualified to make decisions about.

Imagine a political system where all citizens get to vote on representative experts per subject, with an implementation similar to PageRank. People who are indicated to be more qualified for a subject through both historical metrics (previous votes) and objective metrics (qualifications like a degree or work experience) get a stronger vote on representatives for that subject. The elected representatives could either advise politicians (in a binding fashion) or make political decisions directly. This system could strongly reduce a large problem of current democracies that the Brexit vote highlights: all people get an equal say about all issues, regardless of their ability to make qualified judgments about those issues.

Of course there are significant problems with such a weighed voting system, primarily how to make a system that weighs each person's vote fairly and accurately, and who gets to decide how the voting system itself works. This is where modern technology could play a role: by designing a digital voting system that is simple to understand and transparent, so that it can be audited by average citizens. In order to work well, I think this system should be strongly based on the scientific method and should therefore evaluate empirical evidence, instead of emotional sentiments. Another important aspect would be to learn from history, instead of overlooking its lessons. This means the system should be strongly based on political systems that have been shown throughout history to work best, like democracy. It also means that the system should avoid the historical pitfalls of political systems, like concentrating power to a specific group of people.

It would be great to know whether HN thinks that such a system could be designed, or that these ideas are utopian and wont work.

I don't understand how average Americans can buy into this idea that Trump is some kind of outsider. He rubs shoulders with all kinds of rich, powerful, and connected people, including presidents.

The idea that people are enamored with Trump because he represents their interests just doesn't add up. At the most, I can see how people might find his off-the-wall antics and constant flip-flopping somewhat entertaining, but surely that's not a good reason to put him office.

Don't you think opposition to mass immigration policy supported by the pro-EU side might have something to do with lower income/education class voting leave? Something at all... maybe a little bit?

Perhaps, though you might not have noticed it, they were voting their self interest?

Is it surprising that highly educated class wouldn't feel threatened by importing more low-skilled immigrants?

I'm simply illustrating that, it's not as simple as the smart people supported remain, so that's the smarter choice. Smarter for whom?