Democracy is not the Best Form of Government

Firstly, I need to define democracy, to do so I will take the definition provided by Merriam-Webster dictionary - "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. " At the same time, I need to define aristocracy - From Wikipedia, it says "A form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class. The term derives from the Greek aristokratia, meaning rule of the best". This distinction is important because if there is a group of people who is left out of voting, such as women, or slaves, etc. then the form of government is not a democracy, because a sub-group of the population has been determined to be the privileged ruling class. Argument 1 - Democracy, in its true form, has never been succesfully employed in history Up until recently (as far as I know), there has never been a country that has succesfully employed a true democracy. For example, the first 'pseudo-democracy', in Athens, only male citizens who were not slaves were allowed to have any political vote. Ancient empires such as Athens and Rome were all like this, and this form of government is more similar to an aristocracy than a democracy. Furthermore, the staple democracy, USA, was never even a democracy until 1969, when all people were given an equal right to vote, prior to the 1900s, the government system of America was extremely similar to the governments of ancient Greece and Rome: A perceived elite group (male citizens who were natives and not slaves), that had exclusive voting power. In modern days, rapidly developing countries such as China are practicing aristocratic government ideologies. Membership to the Chinese Communist Party is only available to graduates of elite college programs, or to people who have connections in said parties. Only 83 million people in China are even members of the party, and it is the most powerful political party in China. Argument 2 - The average person in the population is too uninformed This argument is simple enough. A vast majority of people are simply not well-informed and not well-researched on political issues. They do not know enough about fiscal or foreign policy to accurately assess a candidate's position. There is a recurring problem (every election) of people who vote for candidates based on 1 or 2 social issues, this persists even in the coming up 2016 election. For example, in the 2008 election, there were celebrities who openly stated they only voted for Barack Obama because of his skin color. And, from personal experience, I can't even begin to count the number of people who are voting in the coming up election simply because of their stance on Syria, illegal immigrants, gun rights, or religious beliefs. The people who are choosing the president should not be focused on just one or two issues, they should be well educated in ALL the issues that are pertinent at the time. As I stated in argument 1, modern day democracy is unprecedented, we have never before had the technological ability to create such a powerful media and make voting become so easy. Up until recent times, there has never been a country, where through technology and social opinion, every person has had the ability to vote. In older times, this was never a problem. Due to the lack of technology and the inefficiency of transportation, even if a government claimed that every male citizen had the right to vote, it was predominantly the rich and the educated who actually DID vote. Argument 3 - As a result of A2, the average person is more susceptible to manipulation People who do not understand the complexities of politics and economics are simply more capable of being tricked by politicians who are trying to get into office. All a politician has to do is convince a person (who knows nothing about the topic) that they are right, and what they say is the most beneficial thing for the voter. This is an extremely big deal, because if the pesron is not willing to do his/her own research into the issue, they can be thoroughly tricked by their ignorance. My ultimate point is that the reason why the 'pseudo-democracies' of the past and present have been so successful is because they were never really democracies. They were simply very large aristocracies whose governments were/are run by an intelligent and educated elite. To build on that, there is simply no historical evidence that a true democracy would be an effective government (let alone the best), because it has never happened until recently. And logically, it does not make sense as to how it could be the best. A majority of people do not understand politics, economics, or foreign policy, so how does it make sense that they should be picking the person who will be making decisions over these issues?