system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: An artificially intelligent political scientist would be able to select a much more preferable Government than a Democratic Election in the future.

In the United States, there are a ton of unscientific views that are held by the majority of the populace. I am probably wrong about what they are, and other statistics. But for the sake of argument, if you left it up to Democracy, the majority of people would probably vote for the acceptance of doctrines such as; "Dinosaurs never existed", "The Earth is Flat", "Vaccines cause Autism", etc, etc... 

Obviously, we don't leave those types of things up to Democracy, because we don't vote on what the best science is. So why should we apply this logic to almost every national endeavor except for elections?
gpt
The major problem isn't which facts are accurate and which aren't.  Sure there are the occassional discrepencies between populism and factual reality, but that's why we elect people who hire experts in fields to advise them (granted, most politicians from both sides of the aisle pick and choose which economic policies they want to endorse based on popular opinion).  The problem with appointing an AI to run your government is deciding what outcomes you desire.  We have general ideas about how different public policies can produce different outcomes. The problem is there are different ideas of what the government *should* do, and what society *should* look like, which are subjective in nature and cannot be decided by an AI.  

Is your goal to maximize GDP, od is your goal to maximize human development?  Is your goal to minimize government restrictions or maximize legal protections?  Do you want to maximize individual privacy and freedom at the expense of security?  How much are you willing to sacrifice?  These are all subjective values and a big part of what citizens vote on in elections: the direction they want their country to go.