People say democracy has failed, what is your alternative?
[The question was accompanied by this explanation: A lot of people believe that events like Brexit prove that democratic system is broken and provide examples of Athens executing Socrates, Election of Hitler etc, saying that old/uneducated/white/conservative people shouldn't have the right to vote. What exactly do they offer instead of status quo?]
I think it unwise to use Brexit to judge the efficacy of democracy. It is not uncommon for the losers in any contest to denounce the process by which they lost. In this case, 48% of the British voters can make a fairly loud noise. If, as I suspect, international bankers wanted the UK to remain in the European Union, we should not be surprised by the volume of their anguish.
Brexit was a referendum, a form of Direct Democracy. The susceptibility of Direct Democracy to manipulation through the media is well known. Brexit may have confirmed some of the fears about Direct Democracy, but it didn't add anything new to the discussion of democracy.
I can't comment on the death of Socrates, it was before my time. The election of Hitler occurred during my childhood and is a clear example to the danger of party politics; the elected members of the Nationalist Socialist Party in the Reichstag gave Hitler dictatorial power.
As far as folks who say "old/uneducated/white/conservative people shouldn't have the right to vote" are concerned, they are entitled to their opinion. Mine differs.
As far as people who say democracy has failed, I'd say we (in the United States) have yet to achieve democracy. What we have is a top-down arrangement (i.e., government by those who control the political parties) passing itself off as a democracy, which is absurd because democracy is a bottom-up concept (i.e., government by the people).
The alternative is straightforward. Let the people decide the issues they want addressed and select the individuals they want to resolve them. Simply use our immense data processing capability to arrange the electorate into very small, randomly chosen groups, and let each group select one of its members to represent the others. Then, arrange those so selected into new groups and let the process continue, in a pyramidal fashion, until the desired number of representatives have been chosen.
There are many advantages to this approach. It is completely bottom-up. It lets every member of the community participate, to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability. Advocates of every ideology can proclaim their ideas and encourage discussion of their concepts. Some will be accepted, in whole or in part, as they are shown to be in the common interest of the community.
The process is faster than the never-ending manipulative nonsense that burdens us now. There is no campaigning, so it eliminates the need for money. Individuals that advance are examined, carefully and repeatedly, by their peers, BEFORE they are chosen.
Now, THAT's an alternative.