Yeah, I mean I think you've made some good points here Poop, but even still it's a poor referendum. The problem is status quo will always be one option, while the nuance of action will split the action vote.

Ong also makes good point about experts going rogue. It's similar to the paradox of a functioning state needing to maintain some number of secrets, but a state's ability to keep secrets from the world, and its own citizens in particular, opens the door for abuse by bad actors. The issue with Ong's stance, imo, is the same as that of a radical transparency advocate-- sure there's the potential for abuses and there have certainly been abuses, ones we know about, ones we have yet to find out about, and ones we'll likely never know about. None the less, a functioning state needs the ability to maintain secrets, just as a society needs to give some deference and authority to experts.

Like so many other scenarios, these issues are a balancing act, but due to status quo blindness and axioms, like democracy is good, experts should be in charge, etc, which don't perform as well as we'd like under stress, people end up seeking extremes.