THOMAS. You will not be happy.
Isn't that a big deal in direct democracy? The assembly participates. If you aren't there, you don't have a voice, period. If you want to point out voter turnout as a problem with representative democracy, don't pretend it's not a problem in the alternative. I only have to vote once or twice every four years. In direct democracy I'd probably have to vote every day on laws I don't have time to read or somehow understand through multiple, alternative sources of info, like any decent researcher. At least a representative's full time job is to be counted. He has the time to fulfill that responsibility.I am not sure I get your point by saying I will be representing all the people that didn't vote. What if I am? Is that bad you mean? They chose not to vote.
That's like saying thousands of people can't be wrong. Does political climate mean nothing here? With re-elections, the climate certainly has an opportunity to change because of who's sitting, but in the alternative you would have to wait for voters in the majority to die. Remember, open minded people do not have to change their minds, so things could stay the same like things stay the same now -- it's just we suffer the consequences longer. The significant minority will suffer the tyranny of the majority as long as they cannot obstruct the business of voting, as is done frequently, and more now than ever, in the US Senate.But you assume that people vote for good reps, which is not true. Who is being naive??
What measure is a good politician? Mmm, well say what you want, I only want to change your mind about that if I stand a chance. I think I've done what I can.The question is, do you really think that good politicians are voted?? Can't I say that the majority are corrupted and the good ones tend to have less power? If the answer is yes, then a direct democracy is an improvement.