...

I'm going to spend the next half an hour before I have to leave for work explaining a fundamental flaw in American Democracy.

Let's say you have a minority demographic of people who understand a cypher, and a majority demographic that does not. Let's call this cyper... "Legalese" for brevity. The minority demographic gets documents written in Legalese and they understand their implications in their entirety. They alone can't decide whether or not the documents result in governmental decisions, so they have to present an interpretation of their documents in a way that the majority demographic can understand. In being the only demographic that understands the cypher, the minority demographic can choose to present the topic positively or negatively. Let's say it's a bill, with a positive implication and a negative implication if implemented. The minority demographic can present the bill focusing on the positive implications only without having to tell a lie, and vice versa with only the negative implications. Upon being presented with either a positive, neutral, or negative interpretation of the bill, without realizing it the majority demographic will be inclined to vote in the best interests of the interpretor. The majority demographic is only given one choice, where the minority demographic is given several choices. It is as though the minority demographic is making their vote by deciding upon how they choose to present their translation of the document written in a cypher that only they can understand. This would make the minority demographic a collection of oligarchs.

"Ok, so that's why we're appointing representatives... right? We appoint people that we believe will act in our best interests." In theory, yes. The thing is that the entire process of appointing representatives is subject to that same problem. Only the minority demographic that understands the cypher that all documents are written in by prerequisite has the luxury of deciding how to present the information they've been given to a voting populace. Sure, some factors are subject to randomness like the presenter's charisma or any number of things that could cause the populace to not take the presenter's word for it. It still stands that there is consistently more control over the situation from the minority rather than the majority.