One Degree wrote:Not that I don’t understand your concerns, but am partly playing devil’s advocate. Why should some ‘higher principles’ override what people think they want? Who decides these principles if not the people? This seems to be the age old argument of the ‘elites’ must be allowed to control the masses for the good of the ignorant masses.
Yes, a president or cabinet would be required for emergency decisions, but these are rare. Most are concocted today.
We also still have the question of why we should continue with representatives when we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?
I'm saying that direct democracy might be OK for deciding the 'higher principles'* (eg it is/isn't OK to use the death penalty), but after that you need detailed legislation for the actual laws - which requires work that the average person can't put in. It's a full time job. And government is not just setting laws; it's also administration. That's where the consistency needs to come in. You need to set budgets, and decide how it's paid for - again, a full time job. So no, it's not 'emergency decisions' the politicians are needed for, it's running everyday things. We choose the people to represent us in these jobs.
Who says "we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?" I don't agree that.
*: I see now that I wrote an ambiguous sentence. When I said "certain decisions that don't conflict with other areas, or fundamental principles, might be suitable for referendums" I should have put it as "certain fundamental principles, or decisions that don't conflict with other areas, might be suitable for referendums".