In this paper, I argue that democracy is best enacted as a republic or representative democracy. To reach this conclusion, I investigate intrinsic arguments for and instrumental arguments against democracy. I ultimately demonstrate that intrinsic arguments for democracy are impossibly restrictive: no society could reasonably implement the models of democracy presented therein. Further, instrumental arguments against democracy are correct: people are largely incapable of making the regular political decisions required to run a modern government. These arguments, typically for epistocracy or technocracy, systematically fail to develop a satisfying system for selecting the experts that rule. I argue that the best system for selecting these experts is a representative democracy.

In pure democracy, voters are expected to judge expert opinions rather than interpret information themselves. This makes voting a second-order decision. Critics may reasonably claim that the layman cannot hold the information necessary to judge expert opinion on all matters. However, voting in a democratic republic is a third order decision. Voters need only select a representative with good judgement rather than judge expert opinion. I develop a frame for candidate evaluation and suggest methods of reorienting public depictions of candidates, campaign policy, and civic education to better fit the role of citizens, representatives, and experts in republican or representative democratic governments. No other system builds a system for selecting expert opinion that is as actionable or effective.