Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
Don't you think that most people would simply accept the rantings of the few people who have done the research, and are mouthing off, either for or against, on ridiculous grounds rather than rational thought? How many people will still rattle off lies (about Obama's birth certificate, about gay marriage, about abortion, about almost any hot topic) despite those lies having been debunked over and over and over again? Instead of learning for themselves, they latch onto a mouthpiece (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Riley, Al Gore) and spout the same, stupid, misleading garbage.
Probably true, but not to a greater extent than they do right now with elected representatives - who, in turn, often vote on issues based on nothing better as well. I vaguely recall an experiment someone did in the lead up to the 2008 election, asking those who identified themselves as a supporter of one candidate or the other if they supported their choice because of (opponent's view, misattributed). Some Obama supporters were really enthusiastic about his campaign finance reform legislation and sticking to the public financing system while his opponent opted out, while others were definitely voting for McCain because of his strong pro-choice credentials ... shame they had the two candidates confused there. At the very least, voting directly on issues instead of proxying it by people's names would eliminate that.

I'm not saying to use direct democracy exclusively, voting on every technical detail of every law - just to put the electorate at the top of the chain of command, so taxpayers can override the worst decisions the same way the President can veto them now. If CA can vote to recall bad governors, why can't the US vote to recall bad laws?