[JumpCrisscross]

> seems like whatever party gets into power, suddenly doesn't want to change the system

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution” [1].

No President. No courts. Partisanship may work to our advantage in a divided government. What you would need, however, to reach two thirds is some members of the President’s party signing on. That could happen if the President is taking a dump in the polls, and the opposition looks likely (but isn’t yet assured) to gain the Presidency next term.

> We need a way to vote for popular ideas via referendum at the federal level

We need a plebiscite institution. But that can be done at state level for Constitutonal amendment approval. What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

[mrguyorama]

>California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies

California is one state among 50. People using it as an example of some sort of government being bad are objectively in bad faith.

Please inform me how my state's citizen referendums are bad? We are about to have a vote on voter ID laws, which I do not approve of, but what's important is that the people who care are able to have their will made manifest, and it will actually go up for a vote.

Meanwhile nordic countries have vastly more direct democracies and don't have the problems you insist.

If you cannot make your argument without california, you do not have an argument, because california's shitty government predates democrat control, because it was always built as this crazy world where rich and connected people had control. California's government is built wrong, not because of democracy, but against it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> inform me how my state's citizen referendums are bad?

Straw man. Nobody claimed this.

> nordic countries have vastly more direct democracies and don't have the problems you insist

What are you referring to? “Finland has traditionally relied on the representative form of government, with very limited experience of the deployment of the referendum in national decision-making” [1]. And while Sweden and Norway have referenda, neither has binding referenda on demand or even a requirement for referendum to amend the constitution [2].

> if you cannot make your argument without california, you do not have an argument

California features the largest and most powerful direct-democratic institution, its referenda, in America. It’s going to come up when we discuss direct democracy.

That said, I have no idea how you reach my comment and conclude that California is not only the only argument I make against direct democracy, but even essential to it.

> california's shitty government predates democrat control

Are you mixing up direct democracy and rule by Democrats, the party?

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-24796-7_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country

[BrenBarn]

> What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments.

I think the opposite. That is exactly what we need. A lot of the problem we have come from the fact that the constitution speaks almost entirely in terms of what various government bodies do and provides no way for the people to directly override government actions they disagree with. This has led us to our current situation which is based on politicians exploiting loopholes (e.g., gerrymandering, stacking various judicial/administrative posts, manipulating voting laws, etc.) in order to preserve their position against potential electoral response.

In some cases these problems have been overcome or mitigated at the state level. . . via ballot measures. In California, for instance.

> California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but from where I'm standing California looks a lot more sane and stable than the US as a whole.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> What we don’t want is direct democracy proposing amendments. California is a modern example of why republics are more stable than pure democracies, for anyone who forgot about Athens.

speak for yourself. the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as evidenced by the current political climate in the US

We're not a direct democracy. You can't find proof of a pudding in a taco bowl.

Direct democracies fail in self-reinforcing factionalism. "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government...enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This has consistently happened across history, even in small direct democracies, it's one of the essential takeaways from the Athenian experiment [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates