>
> A straight democracy would be a horrible, horrible thing.
>

Agreed.

I think the important word you used (or maybe you didn't) was "competent". As you have described, normal people simply aren't competent to govern a country, especially in the long run (avoiding wars a prime example). However, is democracy, straight or indirect, the best way to ensure competent rulers? Who's competent to decide who's competent to rule? (Does that sound like a vicious circle?) An alternative to attempting to be ruled by competent people is to ensure that noone's incompetence can make too much damage, i.e. replace the rulers often. This might necessitate keeping a large staff of long-serving advisers.

jul"has everything really been tried?"ian