I do think some clarification is in order.

First of all, we need to distinguish (at least) between direct democracy and representative democracy.

In the headline of this debate it reads:

Democracy is when all the people get to vote on decisions.

This is more in line with direct democracy. So maybe the question should be along the lines of " Would the US be more successful as representative democracy (which we currently are) or direct democracy?"

Today, the truest and only direct democracy is Switzerland. Direct Democracy is a system of democracy giving citizens an extraodinary amount of participation in the legislation process. However, it is not as clear cut as it sounds, nonetheless, the citizens do have a voice, but this can be a slow process. E.g. universal suffrage (even though it was already a direct democracy) in Switzerland was not achieved until 1971! and it had been off and on the table since 1874. 1971: 621,109 (66%) yes vs. 323,882 (34%) no. (other times it went to vote with no clear majority)

That aside, I can see both sides to the representative vs. direct democracy debate.

PRO REP/ ANTI DIRECT

Here you have the idea that heavily influenced our founders. Plato believed that direct democracy encourages bad leadership… “popular lead is devoid of true knowledge.”

Lawrence K Grossman’s book, author of The Electronic Republic, agreed with Plato that there is reason for us to fear “too much democracy.” We need experts with the experience and educational background to deal with the issues that face us.

Grossman writes: “Ordinary people do not have the time or the inclination to delve into details of healthcare reform and crime legislation, or become informed about our trade imbalance or Middle East diplomacy. As much as we would like to believe that the people themselves are best qualified to judge what is in their self-interest, the reality is that informed specialists are more likely to make sound judgments. Democracy needs a governing elite” (12).

Generally, the classical argument against direct (or pure) democracy is:

“the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves.”

PRO DIRECT

One of the most beautiful things about direct democracy is that it does encourage dialogue and deliberation and deliberation gives peoples a sense of responsibility and heightened interest in the issues. (like what is happening right here with all of us) Any form of direct democracy would be dependent on an aware public. Many theorists see public deliberation as inseparable from the concept of democracy.

“Deliberative politics is not the ideal politics; it is the necessary politics of democracy.”

David Mathews, Politics for the People (1994)

Moreover, it improves the quality of democracy and legitimizes it:

“ Serious public discourse is the seedbed, the wellspring, of democratic politics because the public is the only legitimate body that can define the public’s interests. The quality of democracy depends on this kind of public talk. Changing the quality of public dialogue begins to change politics” (Mathews)

Lastly, Mathews writes:

“…without deliberation, people are just people, a collection of individuals, inhabitants, not a public. They have no connection or relationship to one another. Without becoming citizens capable of giving common direction to the government, people are capable of being little more than consumers of government services.”