Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
I used America as an example because you used it as an example! The very same could be used for any Western country at the time
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
Why do we need to vote for people to wade through the stubborn and uncompromisable bureaucracy when they created it in the first place? It's like walking up a down escalator
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
The same could be said about the present, how are we going to satisfy people's wants and needs by giving them very limited and corruptible options?
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
The establishment of direct democracy doesn't imply the complete destruction of the previous system. A senate of elected representatives could still be established to introduce laws and bills, which the public could later vote on
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
Of course it seems like people will be disinterested in bills and laws from a present perspective, the current system encourages parties, which spoon feeds and distorts them to for the public. I believe (THEORETICALLY maybe) that people will be more encouraged to partake in voting and political discussion once the blinders are taken off.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Celery View Post
However, I am still a die hard Communist, don't worry. But, if I were some kind of sadist and wanted to delay the inevitable collapse of capitalism by a decade or so through appeasing people, I'd use this system
It wouldn't work