Against Democracy in countries with a majority of uneducated citizens

I guess I didn't clarify it enough. Your argument is: "Democracy in a country with a majority population of uneducated and poverty stricken citizens whereby government is voted in by the people is not successful because the majority who vote for a party are at high risk to manipulation." My arguments with SOPA, net neturality, earmarks, and the likes are not an attack on democracy. I am trying to refer to the fact that even with high education levels, or literacy rates, we still have manipulation of information and people ( I did forgot to mention super-PACs.) The reason I explain it like this is to demonstrate that your argument is unsound. Even with high education levels, people are still subjected to manipulation, a premise that your thesis relies on. Whether it is a democracy or a democratic state (btw, I never said democracy, I only said democratic state and I'm pretty sure the two are not the same in terms of meaning.) is not of a concern with the argument at the time. Again, I am trying to show that manipulation is prevelent in any governmental system, fair or not. Since manipulation is a factor in any governmental system, your arguments holds no weight because you have yet to provide any evidence of manipulation is worse in 3rd world countries. This is why I go into the diversity issue in the same round stating that it is more of a diversity issue and not an educational one because people holds different views and to acheive one's political agenda we are subjected to manipulation by cherry picking information i.e. attack ads during presidential elections and by funneling large amounts of money through Political Action Comittees to push for a certain agenda during campaigning.This is also why I stated that you tried to steer it towards 3rd world countries. I believed that you tried to drop my issue of the U.S. by telling me that I'm not on topic.I completely agree with you that "each party striving for their own political agendas" can cause conflicts. However, receiving a proper education and being informed of problems in the country - problems which heavily stem from the current government's incompetence and capitalisation on public ignorance through poor service delivery and getting away with corruption (while still being able to convince the masses that they don't) - ensures that you understand why these issues arise. In developed (or high average literacy level) countries, these problems are noted by the public and alter their views to such a high extent simply because it would be well known to the public eye ( high majority of them) that the current government is doing a disservice to the country. As a result, even people with diverse views that support whatever agendas the current government have, would look to oust the current government if it fails to such a dreadful extent (to the extent you would class it as "unsuccessful). This is why diversity among voters doesn't become such an important factor for who one would vote for come election time in these instances, it is how well people are informed about the country, their level of literacy and understanding of economic performance (basic things like GDP and national unemployment rate), how exposed they are to media (and it's exposing of government debacles which happen very often in developing countries on average), etc.Russia has a 99.4% lit rate and yet there are many controversies within these couple years pertaining to manipulation of the public and rigging elections. Among the forms of manipulation were promise of political power.Two dates that come in mind were the Legislative election of 2011 and 2007.http://www.economist.com... (http://data.worldbank.org...)To me your conclusion doesnt follow because an educated population was still influenced by others as seen with Russia, but I think it would be better explained with your topic on South Africa. As with the example of South Africa, continuing the assumption that literacy rates correlates to education level, then South Afrca has a pretty high level of education with a total literacy rate of 94.3% (see same link above for lit rate of SA). So it turns out that your example is actually Conceding to my point that educational levels have no correlation towards govenrmental manipulation. It's the same reasoning as my United States example.If we look at it from a diverse agenda perspective, then it can at least answer why even highly educated people were being manipulated. We can reason that each party tries to achieve its own politiacal goal by providing incentives. For example a certain political party pushing for its agenda may realize that the general population of centrists are opposed to topic A. The best idea is to gain the most amount of votes without losing their current constituents by maximizing their agenda with the centrists to the greatest extent all the while minimiing the amount of opposition from their current consitutents.