Direct democracy has had a bad name in the US ever since our founding, but the history of direct democracy (e.g. ancient Athens) that our founders had access to, turns out to have been somewhat inaccurate (and direct democracy was more functional than previously realized).

But similar to the way we define (mischaracterize) socialism in this country (as anything that involves the state), we also wrongly define direct democracy. For instance, in NYC (where I live) one time mayor Lindsey attempted to make our democracy more direct and participatory. He did this by creating community and school boards. However, members of the school boards were caught taking bribes from unscrupulous school principles, and eventually the system was scrapped.

But at no time was this system in fact characteristic of a direct democracy. Citizens of the communities these boards claimed to represent were not able to vote on the issues, they had no appreciable input into the decision making process, and so it was really a variation of representative democracy (just more decentralized than what we have today). Nonetheless, this period gave direct democracy a bad name (and it gives its detractors some red meat to add to their arsenal).

IMO mixing some features of direct democracy into our political system (direct voting on issues at the local level, more referendum voting at the municipal and state level, and the ability to hold recall elections across the board), could potentially be the answer we're looking for (in terms of reducing corruption in our political system). I don't think it's the only thing we need to do (I think we need other ideas as well, like public financing of campaigns), but creating mechanisms and incentives to enhance citizen participation in our democracy, could go a long way to enfranchising marginalized communities and reducing corruption. 

Thoughts?

Bad idea.

The idea scares the hell out of me. It's bad enough that idiots get to vote for President. Imagine idiots voting whether or not we should invade North Korea. Forget it.

(May 20, 2015 at 9:12 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: The idea scares the hell out of me. It's bad enough that idiots get to vote for President. Imagine idiots voting whether or not we should invade North Korea. Forget it.

People would still need people whose job it is to know the issues inside out to drive the agenda and present the arguments for them - Why couldn't you have this with more direct democracy? A much better media than we have currently could potentially do this

(May 20, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Saxmoof Wrote: ... A much better media than we have currently could potentially do this

And how do we get this "much better media than we have currently?"  We have what we have, not what we wish we had.  There is no reason to believe that a direct democracy would eliminate special interests or biassed reporting that willfully misleads people.  Indeed, if people are directly voting for things, there is a much greater motive to mislead people about everything.  Now, they only need to be misled enough to vote for assholes, whereas with direct democracy, the rich need to make sure people are misled on everything, in order to get the voting to go their way.

Quote:And how do we get this "much better media than we have currently?"

I've no clue, but this whole conversation is hypothetical, why not throw in another hypothetical?

At the minute donors spend money on ads that hide the issues on which their candidate is clearly bought out, they make them all about broad things like freedom, patriotism, gosh darn down home folksiness, things that are used to distract from policy 

Imagine if the people voted directly on whether or not to repeal the estate tax and not just for the people that vote on it for example. The ads produced in favour of repealing would have no option but to address the policy itself, and there's no way it would've been repealed if that were the case

We would have much more serious problems than the estate tax if we had direct democracy. In the U.S., evolution would not be taught in schools, and we would have the Christian equivalent of sharia law. Atheists would be fired from their jobs, and sent to concentration camps.

Oh yeah, I forgot that there are concentrated pockets of extreme stupidity in the US and not the usual dispersal of idiots, yeah you're right those places would be awful

The problem with a true democracy is that "demo" means "people," and most people are fucking stupid.

All great responses. I just have a few points I'd like to add.

I had mentioned direct voting on issues at the "local" level, more referendum voting at the municipal and state level, and the ability to hold recall elections across the board (including congress), I suppose you can call this direct democracy light (or really a representative system with some aspects of direct democracy blended in to create a hybrid). Also, introducing aspects of direct democracy into our political system would not abrogate our Constitution.

So I wasn't exactly proposing an Athenian style democracy where absolutely all decisions are made by direct democratic voting in a modern version of the Agora. In fact, many of the ideas I mentioned are in practice today in some US jurisdictions (for instance, Colorado grants the right to hold recall elections, including for members of congress, we're all aware of California's referendum voting system, etc.).

BTW some historians would agree with the consensus on this board e.g. Athens was extremely militant and went to war often (many attribute this to the makeup of their political system). But of course Rome was even more militant, arguably the United States is a militant society, so I'm not sure if direct democracy enhances this propensity? 

But also consider, a representative democracy doesn't necessarily provide any greater protection against the sort of outcomes some of you have postulated. For instance, take the recent example of Egypt. When Mubarak was overthrown, Egyptians voted the Muslim Brotherhood into power, and Egypt is a representative democracy (albeit a fledgling democracy). So this nightmare outcome can happen under a representative system.