In the driving seat

Louis XIVA 17th-Century French king who expanded the powers of the French monarchy and turned his country into the greatest power in the world. However, by the end of his long, 72-year reign he had squandered much of this advantage. of France became king at the age of five. He took up the reins of the state himself at age 13. He ended up being history's longest-reigning monarch, making France one of the world's most powerful countries in his 72 years on the throne.

Since then, the idea of letting young people make public decisions has fallen out of fashion. But was that a mistake?

Every Day article comes with an online poll for our readers to vote in. And some might suggest the pattern that emerges from these polls proves our students should have more of a say.

After all, Day readers have often made the right calls. When you were asked if digital money was a good idea, 55% of you told us no. That was two years before the collapse of NFTsNon-fungible tokens are digital tokens that represent ownership of unique items. They can be bought and traded online.  and the Sam Bankman-FriedAn American entrepreneur who was the youngest billionaire in the world. He had pledged to give most of his wealth to charity across his life, before being arrested on fraud charges. scandal.

And you are alive to social issues too, with 56% of you saying just last week that patriarchyA system of society where men hold power and women are excluded. is fighting back against feminismCalling for women's rights with the aim of achieving gender equality. , and 69% of you confident that we can build real gender equality.

You did not get everything right, though. Just over half of you thought the monarchy would collapse and that robots would take control - not necessarily at the same time.

In at least one way, we will have to hope Day readers are not clairvoyantSomeone who claims to be a fortune teller. : 62% of you thought that World War Three might be just around the corner.

So what would a world run by Day readers look like? It would have a lot more personal freedom: more than three-quarters of you told us just this week that banning things does not work.

But it certainly would not be a more equal place. 61% of you think there should be no limit on the wealth a single person can have.

It would have its eye on the future, not the past. More than two-thirds of you say traditions should not be preserved.

Animal testing would still be allowed - but only just. Only 51% of you agreed that a noble medical aim justifies animal suffering.

In all, it might be a more spiritual world. Two-thirds of you said science is not the answer to everything.

So some might argue the world could be a better place if we just put all our big decisions to you, the reader. But would this be a good way of running things?

Some places thrive on direct democracy. In SwitzerlandA country in central Europe, known for mountains, lakes and skiing. , any citizen who is opposed to a new law can launch a referendum on it. Since 1848 the Swiss have directly voted on a total of 689 issues, or about four a year.¹

But many theorists of democracy think asking the people too often can be a dangerous thing. According to MontesquieuAn 18th Century French historian and political philosopher, best known for his theory of the separation of powers, which is still found in many national constitutions today. , an 18th Century philosopher, the best state is one that has a balance of powers that can keep each other in check.²

Similarly, John Stuart MillA 19th-Century English philosopher who wrote extensively about freedom and democracy. He is regarded as the father of modern liberalism. warned of the "tyranny of the majority". When a simple majority makes all the decisions, he argued, they use their power to persecute the minority.³

And for some of you who do not care so much about the big issues, making all these decisions might become something of a drag. After all, half of you told us that pudding is more important than politics.

Should you run the world? 

Yes: Old people have had their time in the sun. As a bright future becomes more and more uncertain, it is time to hand control over to those who will actually have to live in the future.

No: It is not sensible to give too much power directly to any group of people. To be wielded justly, power needs to be moderated by institutions and procedures that keep it from harming individuals and minorities.

Or... We probably do not want to decide everything by referendum. But if we put a greater range of issues directly to the people, that might increase their trust in the political system.