[Heisenberg]

Our current government is a disaster.
Our representatives are evil and stupid.
Our representatives are certainly not the voice of reason.

"The current system is not perfect. Therefore, absolutely anything must be better!"

You haven't actually said why "democracy" is a noble end in itself. The goal is responsible government. What makes you so sure that "the majority" decides what responsible government is? The logical extension of this is that, if law should be created by direct referendums, then laws should also be enforced by direct referendums. So much for fair trials after that. After all, who are you to say that the people can't be trusted to try a criminal case properly? Why should we trust judges, who actually know how criminal law works, when we could go with our gut instinct instead?

I think you need some better arguments for denying people more control of their government.

So the profound stupidity, selfishness and short-sightedness of the average person isn't sufficient? There's also the question of why very regular referendums are even desirable, assuming that people can be trusted to vote responsibly. Why should politicians have to pander even more to the fickle whims of the populace than they do now, for example? Why is this instant-gratification, "I must have my say, this instant!" theme a noble end? It's the complete antithesis of long-term, patient and just government.

[One Degree]

It's the complete antithesis of long-term, patient and just government.

I am not sure what reality you live in where there is a patient and just government.
A reality where politicians are the intelligent, good guys and average citizens are dullards and evil.
Please tell me where this exists so I can move there?

Edit: People are trusted to try criminal trials. It is called a 'jury of your peers'

[Heisenberg]

I am not sure what reality you live in where there is a patient and just government.
A reality where politicians are the intelligent, good guys and average citizens are dullards and evil.
Please tell me where this exists so I can move there?

Did I say that the current system is perfect? No. I have repeatedly said it isn't. I also do not believe that representative democracy is the be-all and end-all, and am not remotely keen on "democracy" as an end in the first place. So please, stop making the strawman argument that I think politicians are "intelligent good guys". I do not. I think that what matters is responsible government that adheres properly to a constitution and protects civil liberties. None of these things can be guaranteed by direct democracy, which by definition is not constitutional and does not guarantee anything. Your weird belief in the responsibility and good nature of the populace as a whole requires you to ignore about 99% of history. I ask you again - how do you explain the cultural attitudes and policies of places like Alabama before the civil rights movement? Would they have spontaneously decided to give blacks the vote if it wasn't imposed on them from above?

Edit: People are trusted to try criminal trials. It is called a 'jury of your peers'

Think of "a jury of your peers" as "representatives". A jury trial is much closer to the constitutional ideal than it is to the "direct democracy" ideal, because it requires jurors to be instructed properly by a trained judge, to follow the law to the letter, and to make a responsible and informed decision following a long deliberative process. All of which are the polar opposites of what you're suggesting with direct democracy.

[One Degree]

how do you explain the cultural attitudes and policies of places like Alabama before the civil rights movement? Would they have spontaneously decided to give blacks the vote if it wasn't imposed on them from above?

I simply disagree with your concept of there being 'some group of people' capable of deciding what is best for people that is superior to what people would decide for themselves.
Your quote above clearly shows you believe an opinion of 'outsiders' should be imposed upon a local culture because these outsiders are 'right'.
This is nonsense.
Right or wrong is simply what people decide is in their best interests.
It is ultimately up to the people in a community to demand and protect their own rights. It is not up to outsiders to impose those rights.
If a group of people (we will use your 'emotional appeal group' as an example) are unwilling to do what is necessary to secure their own rights then they do not deserve those rights.
Equal rights in the US were obtained by individuals who were willing to sacrifice their lives to obtain what they believed in.
The laws were the result of these individual actions. The law did not create equality. Individuals did.
Demanding the law is superior to community choice deprives individuals of being responsible for their own freedom and therefore ultimately results in the loss of that freedom. You are willing to die for something or you are not. Artificial shortcuts are a delusion.

[Heisenberg]

You're completely contradicting yourself in the above post. On the one hand, "the majority" is the source of all law, and can be trusted to govern responsibly and justly. On the other, you accept that things like equal protection and the civil rights movement did not arise out of spontaneous majority rule, but were effected by a minority of people imposing their will on a majority (which is exactly what the civil rights movement was - particularly in the South). Which is it? Either individual liberty and constitutional protections are the most important role of government, or direct democracy is. The two things are very clearly different.

I also love you accusing me of making an "appeal to emotion" simply for highlighting a very obvious flaw in your argument.

Demanding the law is superior to community choice deprives individuals of being responsible for their own freedom and therefore ultimately results in the loss of that freedom.

I see. So, the rule of law is bad. Clearly, I disagree with that premise.

[One Degree]

Yes, the rule of law is often a 'bad thing' when it covers hundreds of millions of people.

As far as my contradicting myself, you simply did not understand what I was saying.
I do not agree with 'national' laws mandating equality.
Equality must be earned, not given.
I clearly stated this (you are either willing to die for your rights or you are not), but your views are so opposite of mine that you were incapable of comprehending them, just as I have trouble comprehending your views.

[Heisenberg]

Equality must be earned, not given.
I clearly stated this (you are either willing to die for your rights or you are not), but your views are so opposite of mine that you were incapable of comprehending them, just as I have trouble comprehending your views.

I suppose you're right. I don't understand what the point is of a nominally democratic society in which people must constantly kill each other to secure basic civil liberties. It seems to me that these can be secured far more simply, efficiently and justly by making everyone subject to the rule of law.

[fuser]

Every country should strive to be more like Somalia.

[One Degree]

Slavery, for example, was the norm of the world for thousands if not millions of years.
It was gradually ended in one small part of the world at a time by individuals who died demanding that others be allowed to be free.
Race is an important component of most cultures.
Passing a law demanding minorities have the same rights in 'every' culture serves no purpose other than creating an undercurrent of resentment by both the majority and the minority.
In a local community, when a minority physically objects to their lack of equality, their actions earn the respect of the majority. You have the basis then of achieving equality. You have demonstrated your worth. You have stated you are willing to sacrifice yourself. This does much more for your case than any law can do.
This only needs to be done once in history in each community, so it is not like it is continuous violence.
It is really no different than two kids who don't like one another.
They get in a fight and learn respect for one another.
Their parents telling them fighting is wrong would never have instilled this same respect.
I learned this when I transferred from an all white school to a school that was 50% black.

Edit: You don't have to win the fight or actually fight to earn respect. You just have to show your willingness to fight.

Edit: I don't have anything better to do so I will ramble on.
I live in the US midwest. There are lots of small white communities. All most all of them have at least one black family that has always lived there and therefore are part of the community. They are exempted from any racist tendencies of white individuals. Community takes priority over race or any other consideration. They have earned the right to be part of the community. No laws were necessary.

[Uberak]

The popular referendum is a vulgar and simplistic form of direct democracy. Sure, it may be useful as a part of democracy, but the referendum, as mentioned, above is insufficient in bringing about liberty for all. Firstly, a constitution must be around to protect individual rights and will be applied to referendums and plebiscites as much as to any law made by representatives or delegates. An elected constitutional council and appointed constitutional court, which may vary by country to country basis, will enforce the constitution. Secondly, the direct democratic system would have to be federal and decentralized in nature. Much like many models presented by anarchists and libertarian-communists, government would begin from local governments, at the neighborhood, town, or village level. They would be completely direct democratic but still elect mandated recallable delegates to federated governments. The method of the elections would be done through direct representation, where the votes themselves are counted and the delegate's voting power is based on how many votes they have in their neighborhood, village, town, or city. From there, they would federate to higher governments. What I mean is that these delegates can assemble on either the local (city or rural county-sized canton), regional, or national level, whilst the citizenry or the delegates may initiate referendums and initiatives respectively. The national government (in large nations) would have little direct power and be mostly responsible for military, tariffs, enforcing the federal constitution, and foreign policy, though that would vary based on the country in question. Regional (or national in the case of smaller nations) governments would have more powers, and local governments more so. Basically, local governments would have most of the power, whilst the national government would be comprised of the direct democratic local governments in federation to resolve issues affecting all of them with perhaps a mechanism of sort for regional interests to represent themselves. (An upper-house consisting of regionally elected delegates? Or, perhaps the local governments voting on a region by region basis?)

The reality is that direct democracy is an untested form of government aside from a few isolated instances and a couple successful half-attempts. Then again, we should take a look at how republics let alone ones with universal suffrage were seen throughout history. They were laughed and scoffed at as impractical and only leading to ruin. Now aside from the ramblings of a few monarchists and fringe authoritarians, any state that has even a remote history of being a liberal representative "democracy" is almost universally reveled whilst none of these states have truly collapsed. And now, the vast majority of countries at least pretend to be representative democracies or to fight for the ideal of being a representative democracy.

I may not have an exact blueprint of a direct democratic utopia, but neither did any of the liberal revolutionaries that brought about their system. To say that great men single-handedly come up with systems of governments from the sky is basically believing in the flawed Great-Man Theory of history. I have a rough idea of a federal direct democratic system and some specific ideas, but most of the specific ideas already exist. And, it would be revolutionaries who will set the system of said governments from what already exists and practicality whilst still basing them off the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, I don't know if it will happen today or tomorrow, or even if we may instead get another form of government that is more democratic than the current government but not as democratic as what I hope. But, Western Civilization has always had this strange tendency to revitalize itself through revolution, and the current crises imply that this may come sooner than we expected.

In total, we shall all play our parts in history, parts that we have plenty of free-will in creating for ourselves, and see what happens, with only the vaguest prediction of what the future may hold.

Or, I could just be at least a little pretentious about obvious shit.

Edited TLDR version: Basically, direct democracy is not just referendums, and constitutions aren't necessarily incompatible. Federalism is needed for direct democracy. It is unwise to build an utopian blueprint that is universal for all nations.

[redcarpet]

Not my words (forgotten whose, a comment poster on The Age website I think), but I roughly agree with them;

There is one issue with referendums that is rarely mentioned nowadays; Its validity or legitimacy in a democracy.

A binding referendum, or plebiscite, can only be based on the assumptions that either the majority is always right, which is absurd, or that even if it is not right, it still has the right to have its will imposed on the rest of us, which is equally absurd.

In a liberal democracy the right of the majority to get its way, is qualified by the principle that minority rights have to be recognised and protected.

This issue goes back as least as far as Plato for whom the central question for government was; Who rules and in whose interest?

For me the best answer came from Abe Lincoln - government of the people, for the people by the people. By this he meant all the people.

If we assume there are 30,000,000 people entitled to vote in Britain and they all voted and delivered a result of: 15,000,001 against 14,999,999, would that give the majority the right to impose its will on the minority.

If not what would be an acceptable majority?

In a modern democracy can a referendum ever be anything other than a government sponsored opinion poll
It is the government’s duty to do what is right, not necessarily what is popular and then test their legitimacy at an election.

[UnusuallyUsual]

The reality is that direct democracy is an untested form of government aside from a few isolated instances and a couple successful half-attempts. Then again, we should take a look at how republics let alone ones with universal suffrage were seen throughout history. They were laughed and scoffed at as impractical and only leading to ruin. Now aside from the ramblings of a few monarchists and fringe authoritarians, any state that has even a remote history of being a liberal representative "democracy" is almost universally reveled whilst none of these states have truly collapsed. And now, the vast majority of countries at least pretend to be representative democracies or to fight for the ideal of being a representative democracy.

I may not have an exact blueprint of a direct democratic utopia, but neither did any of the liberal revolutionaries that brought about their system. To say that great men single-handedly come up with systems of governments from the sky is basically believing in the flawed Great-Man Theory of history. I have a rough idea of a federal direct democratic system and some specific ideas, but most of the specific ideas already exist. And, it would be revolutionaries who will set the system of said governments from what already exists and practicality whilst still basing them off the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity. However, I don't know if it will happen today or tomorrow, or even if we may instead get another form of government that is more democratic than the current government but not as democratic as what I hope. But, Western Civilization has always had this strange tendency to revitalize itself through revolution, and the current crises imply that this may come sooner than we expected.

I agree with this. People scorning direct democracy now would have scorned constitutional monarchy 300-400 years ago as well. It is the future folks, and it's happening more and more. There is no real argument against it, once you accept the basic premise that democracy is the most ethical form of government/society.

[Heisenberg]

There is no real argument against it, once you accept the basic premise that democracy is the most ethical form of government/society.

Why should we accept that premise?

[Quantum]

I don't trust the average person to make decisions on my behalf and thankfully no sane government in the West would actually give the people a voice because it would lead to more right-wing bullshit than whatever any government is peddling right now.

[One Degree]

I don't trust the average person

You don't need to trust the average person, unless you want a uniform society.
You only need to find a local community that agrees with you.
Not trusting the average person means you believe in an elite making the decisions.
The world is well aware where that leads.
It is strong central government combined with wanting the entire world to accommodate our beliefs that creates conflict.
Decide to only be concerned with your local community, and let others be concerned with theirs, and good things will happen.

[redcarpet]

Not trusting the average person means you believe in an elite making the decisions.
The world is well aware where that leads.

A minority are 'making the decisions' when it comes to science, thankfully.

Don't want people like Ted Cruz doing that instead

[One Degree]

A minority are 'making the decisions' when it comes to science, thankfully.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
What decisions are scientists making for us?
Scientists do research.
I guess you could compare the two in that neither politicians or scientists are concerned with 'right' or 'wrong', only in their interests.

[redcarpet]

They decide to publish their research & so on. Right-wing fruitcakes would terminate most scientific research once academic & science independence is ended. Because the 'wrong' results are produced

[Quantum]

Not trusting the average person means you believe in an elite making the decisions.
The world is well aware where that leads.

No, I don't trust them but that doesn't mean I prefer the people to the elites. After all, the people are clamouring to privatise the NHS in the UK and every other social asset by consistently supporting right-wing politicians.

[One Degree]

They decide to publish their research & so on. Right-wing fruitcakes would terminate most scientific research once academic & science independence is ended. Because the 'wrong' results are produced

'Right-wing fruitcakes' are responsible for most scientific advancement. Science gets it's biggest support during time of war, so your whole premise is false.

Second, you are again insisting on only viewing the results in a homogeneous society.
If you view it as a society where local communities have the right to make their own decisions, then you will have liberal communities as well as conservative communities.
National government by representatives requires an either or outcome.
Local autonomy with public referendums results in many different experiments occurring simultaneously.