Well the problem with America is that it's retained it's horrid acceptance of corporate bribery due to its large acceptance of uncontrolled industry. But that's another story.
Because otherwise we wouldn't be able to retain the judicial system, the capital production/control system, and the various smaller bureaucratic systems necessary for day to day life like marriage licensing, demographics and censusing, etc. These systems all work very well, but they depend on the exact, proper wording and bureacratic process that politicians give them.
We could take votes to elect committees to control each area, but at that point it's basically a representative democracy again.
Because the people elect a representative who most closely matches their political stand-point to represent them in a system of parliament (At least, in Canada. With America's bipartisan system you're totally fucked, but as stated before I'm not arguing for that system either). Nobody will ever find a politician with viewpoints that exactly match there own, but it's the best we can do. You keep on insisting that a direct democracy will lead to immediate change, but how will there ever be change when instead of 200 old white men sitting in a room talking shit there's suddenly 300 million people all trying to get a point across. It's like a crippled form of anarchy.
We do have that, it's called a referendum, and it's existed in every major democracy for the last 200 years. If you're arguing for mandatory referendums for every law I can tell you why social progress in laws would never occur.
Bills are extremely long and filled with legal jargon, I highly doubt every person will have a) the time and b) the legal expertise to be able to decipher every bill they vote on.
It wouldn't work




Reply With Quote