direct democracy is the only way

[lucy]

You simply vote from your home computer on a secure line

Actually it's not that simple, at least not according to trials with E-voting in various Swiss cities and cantons. Also, although as a Swiss I totally believe in direct democracy, there are other questions to ponder. For instance, what to do with initiatives that are against international laws.
Also, in a dual party system like the US, there's danger that the political process comes to a complete standstill.
And finally, there's always the danger that it comes to rogue decisions (voters can be idiots, too), like for instance the infamous vote for the ban of minarets here a few years ago.

Personally, I'm also pretty tired of having to vote pro or contra stuff like the construction of a new sewage pipe, just because it costs 20 millions, thus more than the city's parliament can spend without going to a public vote. If it's needed, build the damn thing, coz I, pretty literally, know shit about sewage and it's treatment.

[Thorne]

If it's needed, build the damn thing, coz I, pretty literally, know shit about sewage and it's treatment.

This is the basic problem with direct democracy. You have to assume that everyone knows enough about everything to be able to vote meaningfully, and that everyone will be completely moral about how they vote. When a vote is brought up to extend that sewer system into an area which is predominantly Muslim, say, how many people will do the humane thing and vote for it, and how many will let their prejudices hold sway, as so many of us are wont to do so often.

Direct democracy might work for some things. If your bridge club elects to change the day of the week they meet on to suit the majority, you either live with it or leave. If your town votes to cut off essential services to the slum area, people die. Not the RIGHT people, of course. Only those different, poor people.

[thir]

This is the basic problem with direct democracy. You have to assume that everyone knows enough about everything to be able to vote meaningfully,

I wonder if it is a worse problem than politicians who also, quite often, know precious little about what they vote about, even very important things.

and that everyone will be completely moral about how they vote.

HA! Are you suggesting that politicians are completely moral about how they vote??

Anyway, as I see it it is not about being moral, but about having influence on your life.

When a vote is brought up to extend that sewer system into an area which is predominantly Muslim, say, how many people will do the humane thing and vote for it, and how many will let their prejudices hold sway, as so many of us are wont to do so often.

Well, supposedly the muslims would vote for it ;-)

[Thorne]

I wonder if it is a worse problem than politicians who also, quite often, know precious little about what they vote about, even very important things.

Politicians generally have staffers who study the problems and, theoretically, steer the politician in the right direction.

HA! Are you suggesting that politicians are completely moral about how they vote??

Of course they are! They accept the money from the business that wants them to vote a certain way and that's how they vote! Anything else would be immoral!

Anyway, as I see it it is not about being moral, but about having influence on your life.

It seems more about having influence on everyone else's life. "You have to do it this way because we're the majority and this is the way we say it has to be done, so there."

Well, supposedly the muslims would vote for it ;-)

Assuming that the "moral" majority would allow them to vote at all.