Direct Protect

It's a good question.

For example, a direct democracy does not always protect the rights of individuals.

For example you want to be the sheep in the democracy of five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?
.
Pure democracy does not protect the rights of the minority.

Make sure that our government keeps checks and balances.

Currently, unions have destroyed the diversion by Arlan Spector Part Dem. Now Democrats can do whatever they want, and it is a dictatorship.

A direct democracy, as cumbersome and impractical, because it is running, take all the guess work out of politics. For example, when the Bush Paulson rescue / got 99% disapproval, it would not happen in a direct democracy, but under a representative democracy, we thank you to our "representatives" who have done a lot money, not us.

It does not work. Direct democracy is mob rule. If the vote of 50.1% that something is legal it is. Over time, the 49.9% will be abolished and their rights slowly taken away, and we can not do anything, since majority rule in fact a law.

The United States is not a direct democracy, but rather a democratic republic. We elect leaders who legislate for us. Their countries are not currently using the system of direct democracy. If they were to use this system, everyone in the nation to vote for each bill sent forward.

A direct democracy does not protect individual rights. In a direct democracy, each issue is subject to a general vote. If a majority of votes to enter your home and give your property, that's all.

Western democracies are representative democracies. The United States Constitution is unique in that it is a straitjacket on the government and not the people. In fact, he uses the word "no" or the words "not" 43 times.

It is also sparse. If you put the text into a word processor it takes about 32 pages. The Constitution of the EU on further hikes of about 820 pages.