I am not denying that sometimes public opinion can be right when elected officials and lobbyist are wrong (or evil). My contention is that there are also cases when the opposite is true. Thus, “more democracy is always better”, or “let always the people decide in an election/referendum”, is not a valid argument. It is an absolute that should not be applied in all cases.

Other examples (apart from the ones I mentioned already) are scientific or technological decisions that are very expensive, that have profound long-term impact, and/or are too complex for the public to grasp:

• The right percentage of human GDP that is sensible to invest in space colonisation, for our own long-term benefit as a species.
• The appropriate recipe for the “energy mix” to sustain welfare and growth while minimising pollution and long-term effects in climate change.
• The decision to invest public funds in certain health campaigns or very expensive treatments, when increasing the chances of survival for a very few significantly diminishes the share of health resources for the rest.

These are examples of difficult decisions that, IMHO, should not be left to referenda — but to committees of well-respected independent technocrats, scientists and experts in those fields. And it’s even better when those decisions are coordinated at the international level.

I know referenda in Switzerland often produce responsible and far-sighted results. Switzerland seems almost unique in that. It’s way easier to find examples of the opposite: countries and times in History when that sort of Swiss referenda, if submitted to the citizens, would go awry and have disastrous consequences.