Problems? Basically, the built in undemocratic unwillingness to “go with the flow” of the group, because of the Individual compulsion related to One’s realization of the uniqueness that comes with Our GOD Given Personalities.
This “unwillingness” can reach a state of imbalance that can “harm” the Individual and the Group because it reduces the needed decision making strengths that comprises the Direct Democracy Processes.
“Democratic Reform Trilemma”
Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation – widespread participation in the decision making process by the people affected; deliberation – a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality – all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account.
Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making. The most popularly disputed form of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters.
This is usually because a “constitution” is a well considered starting point (or co-starting point) for cooperative collaboration that attends a “Spirit Of Direct Democracy”.
For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone* needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fishkin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fishkin’s definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality, because if widespread participation is allowed, sufficient resources rarely will be available to compensate* people who sacrifice their time to participate in the deliberation. Therefore, participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided and often will not therefore be representative of the overall population. Fishkin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small, but still representative, number of people from the general public.
Not “Everyone”* is necessary to enable a well functioning Direct Democracy. “Everyone” might be Ideal, but not an essential for “Collective Governance”. The functional influence and power, of Direct Democracy begins when two or more Individuals begins to deliberate upon and discuss, the governance issues of the moment. This power increases with the addition of every Individual who participates in this deliberative process. The potential of this is that, enough Individuals get involved, that Their Collective Will can become the deciding factor in the formation in “Pragmatic Reality” of Their Government.
There will be reactions against this “potential”, that The Participating People will have to overcome. It would probably be Wise, for this developing social body to not announce their intentions and processes overtly, but quietly seek and find each Other, in the Just name of this Idea. Secret Societies can be fun.
“Compensate”* All participation should be voluntary.
Fishkin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms* if such a system were to be integrated into mainstream politics.
I agree. “Radical Reforms”* are needed.
I also agree that much of Direct Democracy can be “integrated” into mainstream politics. Especially if the “main stream politics” continues to be corrupted and weakened, by private capitalism influences.
Start small and “low”. Then “climb” as Direct Democracy strengths develop.