[RS]

So - Madison had a problem with it, but he seems to have been a bit off in our case as to it's lifespan.

If you had taken his advice from his mouth, your childrens childrens childrens childrens would be dead by now and his dire predictions for the death of democracy would not have come to pass.

In any case - as I asked before ... do YOU have a problem with direct democracy ?

[Amerigomag]

When direct democracy it is used to bypass due process, which has been the common practice in California, it is a problem. As this abuse multiples, so does the size and scope of that problem. Taken to its logical conclusion, the tyranny of the mob would replace the reason and stability of our democratic, republican model.

Common example:

Legislation dealing with the creation of a new tax or significant debt or increasing the rate/amount of an existing tax/debt requires the approval of a super-majority of both houses of the state legislature. A due process to protect minority interests.

That same legislative intent, when introduced into a direct democracy setting, requires only a simple majority. A simple majority of those who actually voted. Recent elections have demonstrated that as little as 15% of those eligible to vote can impose their will on the remaining 85%.

That is a serious, but easily resolvable, problem with California's present model of direct democracy. The system is further flawed because complexity, a favorite tool of the political class and special interests, tends to promote voter apathy and apathy further empowers an increasingly smaller minority, out of all proportion to the intent of California's Constitution or Hiram Johnson's original proposal.

A simple fix, which would not erode the will of the mob, would be to require a similar, super-majority in the direct democracy process, when encountering similar intent.