Well let me amend my thoughts. Let's just pretend people of voting age must vote. That's an important thing I think about when considering the political system. I do enjoy the freedom to waive my rights as anyone else, but working under this rule has helped me think straight.
I call you naive. Reading the bills is a very important act, and something you'd expect your reps to do. There really is no substitute for deciding your vote, because if the bill should be defeated for any reason, you need to know what it is. That's part of the reason we have a slow legislative process, to allow time to read . Secondly, bills easily get inflated by people who attach unrelated stuff onto popular bills when they are in either house in the US. Having long bills is bad because it makes them harder to read in a timely manner. It seems the average law these days is very long. That's why there is such a thing as the Read the Bills Act. One wonders what reps do when something is too long. In my book, asking your advisers or reading summaries shouldn't cut it if you want to be sure others are honest with you.
You're talking about giving the job of lawmaker to everyone and assuming everyone can
read law -- not rhetoric -- for comprehension. I'd like to invoke the law of adverse effects: People don't get what they expect -- they get what they deserve.
You're also pretending that large groups of people can't hold the same opinions for a very long time. That's how I feel you are addressing my argument, but as you know, politics is close to many people's lives. They may be open minded but, even so, they may spend their lives agreeing with the same ideas. If popular makes correct, then you damn well better make sure there is some form of obstruction,lest the majority leave a significant majority in its wake. In direct democrazy I can think of two ways to obstruct, by breaking a
quorum, or by attaching ........ you want to a popular bill with the expectation of getting it passed. You might think that first one pretty safe, but a quorum is usually a large percentage of the voting public. I think its safe to say that even if you do it, the average person will not have the integrity to hold out for long, especially if there are other things to vote on. I'd want more possibilities.
I also find it scary that hospitals are legally autonomous in your head. Doctors may cast the best votes with respect to all the regulations affecting hospitals, but they're not the only people that would be important. Misinformation is a plague on the masses. At least in representative democracy there is a buffer for that, called committee.
I hope you don't get too mad at me for disagreeing, but we had enough of this ........ in Athens. I'm pretty set against it.
All mistakes are intentional.