If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
Social democracy. And fostering a society where everyone is able to thrive. Universal basic income, crack down on neoliberalism, corruption, have a sane version of the free market and a sustainable economy, make education easy and available, cut down on crime and violence, have people unite instead of fight each other, we need some cohesion in a society…
I don’t think the voting process of a democracy is the issue here. I like to believe we have a broad majority of people who just want to be alright and live a relatively free life. It’s neoliberalism that causes 99% of our issues and we need to address that. Unfortunately democracy seems to be vulnerable to that, but I’m really unsure if that means we should scrap the entire idea. Maybe we should fix it instead because alternatives aren’t looking great. And currently lots of us aren’t trying very hard. Though it seems quality of life rises, the more “social” a democratic country is.
(And it doesn’t seem to me like neoliberalism was popular with the masses… That’s pushed by a minority of people, the rich and powerful. But I really don’t think it has anything to do with popularity. On the contrary… seems lots of people are not okay with the consequences.)