How Direct Democracy is doomed to fail

250 words

Almost all of those calling for electoral reform advocate so-called Direct Democracy. They appeal to the Swiss model, which allows for plebiscites which can overrule legislation enacted by parliamentary representatives. This is all well and good, but little attention is paid to how things work out in Switzerland. In practice it is a different tale, better than most other allegedly representative democracies, but still seriously deficient. The greatest problem there, as elsewhere, is the power of the mass media to distort most anything they deign to report on.

By its very nature, direct democracy is divisive. The matter to be voted on has to be formulated in a single short sentence allowing of a yes or a no. But the formulation is mostly contentious, with there being alternatives. Compromise and consensus become impossible.

There is no limit to the number of issues which can be put to a vote. As a consequence, people who have other things to attend to are called on to cast votes too frequently; worse, they do not have the time or attentiveness to examine the matter at hand properly. Direct democracy ends, by default, with small but vociferous minorities imposing their obsessions on an ill-informed majority.

One of the foundational principles of Fuzzy Democracy is that voting should not be onerous. It is onerous if citizens are called to the polls too frequently or if the matter to be decided is too complex.