This leads to the wrong conclusion. The philosopher concludes that democracy is a better choice because it’s mediocre. He doesn’t argue that it’s better to choose a form of government that most members of the society prefer.

If it’s better to avoid the worst than to aim for the best when choosing a form of government, this helps to justify the conclusion that democracy is a better choice than rule by few. Democracy is mediocre and so avoids the worst, while rule by few includes the best and the worst.

The conclusion isn’t about what form of government is the best. It’s about which form— democracy or rule by few— is a better choice. We already know that the best forms of government are rule by few, but we need to support the idea that democracy is still the better choice.

The philosopher doesn’t say anything about which forms of government are equitable or whether equitable forms of government are the better choice. Whether it’s equitable or not, we still need to justify the conclusion that democracy is the better choice because it’s mediocre.

This leads to the wrong conclusion. The philosopher never mentions popular preference. He doesn’t say that democracy is the better choice because of “sound philosophical reasons;” he says it’s the better choice because it’s mediocre.