The complexity of politics that these arguments demonstrate (and the "error of the crowds" itself) makes democracy a seemingly futile solution to government. It would take an enormously skilled tactician to win the vote by selling actually useful policies to a population that prefers simple rhetoric aligning with their color.

They would need:

• Knowledge and skill at creating policies.
• Sufficient background in all areas that the policies affect (weighted by importance and enough to make proper use of their advisors).
• Ability to raise money without making promises that severely limit them once elected.
• Excellent rhetorical abilities. Skilled enough to convince people of varying degrees of intelligence and differing allegiances to side with you despite your lack of focus on the "sexy" (but meaningless) topics.
• Excellent negotiating abilities. Fair-representation means you will always have significant opposition once elected. Getting anything done will require tactical negotiating and efficient compromises.
• ...lots of other things.

But someone who wants power really only needs rhetoric and a PR team that can find them the correct issues to align with. There is something wrong here.

Teenage me, with rather too much confidence, would say that we need a benevolent dictator. Now, with rather less confidence in my world-organizing abilities, I prefer voluntarism in some form. It is... less of a lottery and far more elegant. I just need to figure out if it's too idealistic to work.