[rbanffy]

> a general possibility to override unpopular laws.

We have to be very careful with this. Sometimes a very popular law is exactly what you don't want. There are vast areas where a law mandating the teaching of creationist superstition in science classes would be immensely popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular.

[muuh-gnu]

> superstition popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular

Having a legal way for the population to defend themselves against bad (purchased) laws does not in any way imply that you would immediately turn into a theocracy. Switzerland has had them for hundreds of years and is still sane.

On the other hand, having a opaque 2-party dictatorship like the US has no does not somehow prevent religion to have a major influence on politics and laws. You have it on your money (in god we trust), you have it in your schools (one nation united under god), you have it in your courtrooms and presidential inaugurations (so help me god), etc.

Introducting a switzerland-like mechanism for more checks and balances wouldnt change much, it would just make it easier to prevent autocratic decisions like SOPA, Iraq war, etc.

[jules]

Such is democracy, the least bad system we have. Overall it would probably lead to laws that are more in your interest, as opposed to in the interest of people who lobby for laws.

[rimantas]

Democracy is not simply "the rule of majority".

[mikecane]

Democracy is exactly that. Which is why our Founders gave us a democratic republic instead.

[rimantas]

Nope. It is not exactly „the rule of the majority“. It is the rule of the majority with respect to the interests of minority.