Pure direct democracy, sure. But Switzerland is has a 'pause' from when the referendum collects signatures to when it actually happens. This gives the 'hive-mind' time to calm and to think more rationally over emotionally. Also, the requirement to physically go to the voting stations acts as a good disincentive for internet viral uproar as they can't make snap decisions. Although, some Cantons are moving towards vote-by-post, but that's still not as bad as what internet voting would be.
IMO, direct democracy to throw out laws and to also get the government to NOT do something (ie: invade a country) I'm in favor for. Though, direct democracy to vote through laws would require stronger restrictions (the law has to be drafted by elected politicians, for example).
But we do need some form of direct democracy because politicians are easily paid for and certainly don't represent the population (at least, here, in the UK).
I appreciate your comment. Especially paragraph two. Those cases sounds like an especially promising application of direct democracy. I'd be interested to hear if such a system has been implemented anywhere? California, and many other states have similar 'pause' mechanisms built into their 'ballot proposition' system. In the early years it still caused some huge budget issues, since there was a disconnect between it and the legislature's legal budget requirements. It has also been critiqued, very heavily, for being a tool used primarily by those that can afford to get an initiative to the ballot and then fund the initiative's campaign. I read a decent book on the topic in my undergraduate years, "Democracy Derailed" by David S. Broder. A good primer, but I'm sure there are others/better out there. A quick search of Amazon books returns many results. I still take issue with drawing the conclusion that direct democracy is a panacea to the ill of corrupt or ignorant politicians. I've worked in both local and state government, and I saw the same mix of smart, ignorant, passionate, petty, morally guided, morally bankrupt, misguided, misunderstood, enthusiastic, apathetic, hard working, leeching, etc people that I see in non-political, non-governmental circles. Simply enlarging the number of 'legislators' so that more of the population being governed is voting on each law passed does not seem to solve the problems we are having. I do love the idea of direct democracy as a veto or recall mechanism. I actually think it's brilliant. If it was built into the existing election cycle it would be so easy to implement. One possible implementation: Any law passed as of or since the previous year's November general election is automatically up for recal, and is recalled if some super-majority votes to have it recalled. Laws older than a year can be voted to appear on the next general election ballot for recal with a simple majority. Any law which is recalled will go directly to the floor of the both the House and Senate where legislators have the opportunity to ammend the law; if the House and Senate can agree on an ammended version of the law within 30 days from the date of the certification of the instigating election the law will go back to the ballot for a special general election to be held 60 days after the certifying of the ballots from the instigating election. That would be awesome. Someone should make that a thing.
IMO, direct democracy to throw out laws and to also get the government to NOT do something (ie: invade a country) I'm in favor for. Though, direct democracy to vote through laws would require stronger restrictions (the law has to be drafted by elected politicians, for example).
But we do need some form of direct democracy because politicians are easily paid for and certainly don't represent the population (at least, here, in the UK).