The depth of an argument is limited by the shallowest person in the argument. Which means arguments are futile if there is no decisive conclusion reachable at a shallower level. If the proof takes calculus and your opponent only knows algebra your only real option is to arrange an empirical demonstration that will seem like magic to them.

Blogger at ribbonfarm.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

This would mean that democratic elections won't work unless you maintain or increase the "depth" of the electorate

Correct. That’s why they get captured by people doing cheap magic tricks.

Do we need strong parties so that elites select capable candidates?