I've thought about this and while it makes sense I believe b/c 75% of the U.S. population is concentrated in about 13 major urban centers across the country that a direct democracy is just not plausible at this time. The electoral college balances all that out while itself also not being a perfect system.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.Originally Posted by Bubba
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by over 1,885 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
Although direct democracy is nice in principle, I doubt it would be very effective in practice.
A good government must:
1. Provide protection and services for its citizens
2. Be effective. Not too slow or bogged down by bureaucracy.
3. Not be tyrannical. This includes a majority tyranny, not just the tyranny of 1.
In addition:
4. Rule of law must be respected
Direct democracy would maximize the possibility of each citizen's voice getting heard in the law-making process, but I fear it would minimize the effectiveness of the government. Representative democracy is already a very slow government. If you increase participation by 300-million-fold, it will only get slower, and nothing will get done.
Also, I think a direct democracy would increase the danger of having a majority tyranny if the people didn't inform themselves, get a good education, and participate in the government.
Your second argument is a weak one. The chances would increase of a majority tyranny, but clearly not for a tyranny in general, which is the important thing. Representatives have a higher chance of resulting in tyranny than the people in general. Isn't history full of examples were the government abuses its power?
And think of the companies that use politicians. A company can simply pay a politician to gain political power. It would be much much more difficult to do so in a direct democracy.
Direct democracy is slower, but speed is not the case all the time. In a time of war, yes it is. That is why you don't have democracy at all in war. But most laws "can wait" a couple of months if the result would be better.
Practically it is democracy that makes our system slow, not so much the number of representatives. Of course the changes will result in a more complex system which will make it slower, but not too slow to do anything.
Indirectness also slows matters. Because politicians will avoid to take necessary actions because of the political cost. That wouldn't happen in a direct democracy. People would vote, express their will and the matter would be over.
The problem would be when "unpopular" actions would have to be taken, like raising taxes. But taxes would be a different concept, since the people would have a direct saying on their money. There wouldn't be an unnecessary government spending we witness today. The people would have the experts opinion, the politicians opinion etc etc to inform them about any unpopular choice, so they won't act on impulse and discard it.
----
I don't see also why minorities will be taken advantage in a direct democracy. I see our system a bigger threat for minorities because
a) The politicians care about the majority vote more. So for some minorities there won't be a representative at all. In a direct democracy they would always have power.
b) The people feel far less responsible if their representative takes advantage of a minority group rather than if the people did that directly.
c) Think of the case where the majority of people wants to go against the minority. This is easier in a representative democracy. They would just elect the right person for the job. That person would stay for years in power and the minority would suffer for years. On the other hand, in a direct democracy the people could correct their mistake.
The key is that when people act because of impulse and take quick decisions they can be monsters. What you can do is minimize the magnitude of those decisions. The magnitude can be more severe if you elect somebody that will stay for years, because the people concentrate all their democratic privileges on one vote. In a direct democracy, they have more votes, which is more balanced.
What makes you think that the majority would want to correct their "mistake," or even accept that they'd make a mistake in the first place? What happens if, for example, cultural forces transpire in such a way that the majority once again see Jews as the problem and see the elimination of Jews as the solution? Or if the majority decide that the capital of business owners would be put to better use if it were seized and redistributed in order to satisfy their immediate short term needs? I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea of direct democracy, as long as the power of the state is strictly limited as outlined in the Constitution so that no mob majority, no matter how large, may abrogate the rights of the individual as outlined in said Constitution.
I am just saying that it is easier to correct a mistake if you have the ability to vote again.
In any case, the representatives would have a lot more chances to go against minorities, because the possibility of having the majority of the people as Jew-hater is less than having the majority of representatives as such. Because a Jew-hating group for example can try to control the representatives, support them for example in order to be elected. That is a far more difficult scenario than controlling the majority of the people.
If the majority of the people in any case are controlled, no matter what kind of democracy you have, they will do what they want to do.
If the majority wants a redistribution of money, they have the right to do so. Except if the laws protect its individuals wealth, which it does. And of course it protects the integrity of the people so they won't be able to get seized. If the people go as far as to vote for laws the will result of a redistribution of money, then in a democracy you respect that. If that time comes, you don't want for some rich people to be protected because they have political support. You want at least to have a direct equal law. Raising taxes on oil companies for example and not bank, because the banks supported the presidents would be unfair. The people thought would vote for something for direct, like "the rich pay".
Whenever you come up with a scenario you have to think how it would be handled in both forms of democracy.
Hitler said something like that "the bad thing about democracy is that you have idiots to vote". He was right. Hitler probably would make better military decisions than the majority of the people. Maybe economical as well. But when it came on humanitarian choices, he made the worst decisions as well. His intelligent worked in a bad way, not in a good way. You want good and smart leaders, but the "goodness" is something that you cannot really know. That is the problem with a representative democracy. You cannot really know who you vote for. You have friends betraying you which you know for years, you talk with the often etc etc. Now think of a politician you vote for. You haven't talked with him/her, not met him/her in person. How can you really judge him/her? Let alone that you have to predict that they won't get corrupted when given power.
In the end a good representative democracy is the one that seems an utopia.
The real problems of a direct democracy is one. Organization. Getting all those people organized. After the French Revolution their was chaos. Everybody went against France. At that time a direct democratic system was just out of the question. The people would have to plan ahead on "what would happen once we killed the king". Today we have all the time in the world to plan on a good alternative political system. Not everywhere in the world. But in countries like the US, where people have freedom on speech, ideas, to go to court and sue even their mother etc etc the people deserve more power. At least for issues that the majority can understand. Maybe they are not ready to vote for economical laws that result in a balanced system (which even that failed in Greece), but to decide for things like the environment or policies about illegal immigrants they need nobody else. That been said, even if the majority of the people are really that stupid politically, that doesn't mean that the only right minded people are the politicians. Why not have anyone that can read and understand a law vote on it? You can have your politicians + those "ready" people. The people have already the media to inform them as well as the internet to find information in ms. Whoever wants to know about something can. Put they don't still get to decide...
