I think that the topic of ‘democratic consensus’ has bothered me way more than is healthy for a human.  I have a real problem with the influence of massed stupidity on society. The thing is, society isn’t going to change any time soon so I've come to accept it and understand it as rationally as possible.  I’ve extrapolated a few short equations based on my observations.  I shall call them…

Tony’s laws of social rule:

1. The intelligence of a decision is equal to the average of all of the minds participating in the decision.
2. The amount of time required to make a decision is equal to the sum of the time needed by each person to make the decision individually, over the set of all of the people participating in the decision.  (basically, the time it takes the average person to make the decision, multiplied by the number of people participating in the decision)
3. The fairness of the decision is equal to the maximum fairness in the set of participants.

A ‘participant’ can be defined as anyone who thinks that his opinion matters

Notes to the above laws:

* 1 - One might like to think that the ‘higher’ minds would raise the lower minds to a higher understanding but the sad truth is dense people are simply incapable of seeing beyond the ostensible and are mistrustful of that which they do not understand.

* 2 - Although some people are capable of thinking in parallel (i.e. not waiting for their ‘turn’ to think), the amount of redundant conversation that occurs in groups seems to directly cancel any logistical benefits.

* 3 - Fairness is a concept that a good majority of the population can understand and, as a result, the maximum fairness will almost always be realized through a group consensus. It should be noted that often there are many, equally 'fair', solutions to a problem.

What I would like the reader to take away from this is that the maximum number of people needed to make the ‘best’ decision is 2; the most intelligent person and the most judicial (fair).   Any greater number of participants will reduce both the intelligence and the timeliness of the decision.
The rush to create bloated, lumbering democracies seems to be rooted in a mistrust of others – the stupid have no way of knowing who amongst them is the most intelligent or the most judicial.  Fortunately for the stupid, maximum ‘fairness' can be guaranteed by flooding the decision with as many people as possible.  Unfortunately for society – the glut of people reduces the intelligence of the decision and causes a dragging, droning, bureaucratic nightmare.