The votes of an uneducated majority are more likely to overwhelm the votes of better informed voters in a system where people vote for politicians/parties, not actual legislation. In a Direct Democracy, only those who have taken the time to become educated about a bill will likely take the time to vote on it.
By what percentage should a bill pass? 51% 75%? What if only 10% of registered voters turn out to vote on a bill? Should a certain percentage of registered voters be required to vote before a bill becomes law? Perhaps a bill that is voted down can be revised and brought up for a vote again until it satisfies most people. Voting no when there is a shadow of a doubt about a bill could help ensure that the Representatives (assuming they are still writing the bills) do a good job communicating to the people and do not intentionally obscure the issues.
Q: Won’t a Direct Democracy mean majority rule, with only 51% of the vote needed to change the law?
A: Currently, every time a Democrat or Republican is elected, more than half the people are unhappy.
Q: What if those 75% are uneducated/irresponsible? How do you deal with mob rule?
A: Politicians can also be uneducated and irresponsible.
Q: I don’t want to have to constantly make important, stressful decisions
A: Don’t vote if you don’t want to. Turning your vote over to your neighbor is not that different from turning your vote over to a politician.
Q: Won’t the people in a Direct Democracy be unable to come to a Three-Quarter majority decision?
A: If the majority vote no on a bill, maybe the representatives will rework their bill.
Q: I don’t think you can have a society without a hierarchy.
A: This is true. As long as there is reciprocity between levels in the hierarchy, the government will answer to the people.
Here is an example of a bill that people might be asked to vote for or against. Read bill HR 4335, cast your vote, then look at the results.
H. R. 4335
To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 6, 2016
Mrs. Love(for herself, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Massie, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Walker, Mr. Brat, Mr. Labrador, Mr. Blum, and Mr. Yoder) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
To end the practice of including more than one subject in a single bill by requiring that each bill enacted by Congress be limited to only one subject, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “One Subject at a Time Act”.
SEC. 2. One subject at a time.
(a) One subject.—Each bill or joint resolution shall embrace no more than one subject.
(b) Subject in title. —The subject of a bill or joint resolution shall be clearly and descriptively expressed in the title.
(c) Appropriation bills.—An appropriations bill shall not contain any general legislation or change of existing law provision, the subject of which is not germane to the subject matter of each such appropriations bill provided however, that this section shall not be construed to prohibit any provision imposing limitations upon the expenditure of funds so appropriated.
SEC. 3. Enforcement
(a) Multiple subjects in title.—If the title of an Act or joint resolution addresses two or more unrelated subjects, then the entire Act or joint resolution is void.
(b) Provisions not expressed in title.—If the title of an Act or joint resolution addresses a single subject, but the Act contains one or more provisions concerning a subject that is not clearly and descriptively expressed in its title, then only such provision or provisions concerning the subject not clearly and descriptively expressed in the title shall be void.
(c) Appropriation provisions outside subcommittee jurisdiction.—If an Act appropriating funds contains a provision outside of the jurisdiction of the relevant subcommittee of the Committees on Appropriations of the House and of the Senate, and therefore outside the subject of the bill, then such provision shall be void.
(d) Provisions of appropriation bills not germane to subject matter.—If an Act appropriating funds contains general legislation or change of existing law provision not germane to the subject matter of such bill, then each and every such provision shall be void.
(e) Commencement of an action.—Any person aggrieved by the enforcement of, or attempt or threat of enforcement of, an Act passed without having complied with section 2 or this section, or any Member of Congress aggrieved by the failure of the House of Congress which that individual is a member to comply with any requirement of those sections, shall, regardless of the amount in controversy, have a cause of action under sections 2201 and 2202 of title 28, United States Code, against the United States to seek appropriate relief, including an injunction against the enforcement of any law, the passage of which did not conform to section 2 or this section.
(f) State of review.—In any judicial action brought pursuant to subsection (e), the standard of review shall be de novo.