Thank you, Tyler.

I am not a proponent of direct democracy, even though I can find nothing wrong with the logic of the system. It is in the outcomes that I see the flaws appear.

There are many reasons, but the one I will discuss here briefly is that the specialists are not at the center of these races. The pull with direct democracy is toward the average voter (and maximizing the reach), and not on the smartest best-possible choice. This means repeat voting on the same issue, because the first time around the mediocre option was picked. It means voter fatigue will warp the outcome, and it means that finance will influence the outcome.

With proportional voting, the various parties (that must work together to get a majority for a decision) have to work out their differences. This will therefore automatically involve asking the specialists about their opinions and input. It is better to have professional viewpoints clashing with professional viewpoints than Average Joe's instinct clashing with Average Joe's instinct.

If the United States had a 50% Democratic - 50% Republican outcome for ALL elections (Fed, State and local level), then I would be more inclined to keep our system the way it is, because the politicians would then know to work things out together. We do not have that system in place. At the local level, the situation is worst with close to all councils and boards having folks that belong in ideology to just one party (and of course still disagreeing with one another).

Direct Democracy for unimportant issues? Sure. But why have voters vote that way? It only points to the failure of the politicians we have. In a good democracy, the politicians make the smartest decisions. They are strong due to smart discussions, and not weak like our politicians here, afraid to make decisions because they do not have a framework in which they are forced to be the smartest they can be.