excuses me but there are parliament in california or colorado or nevada or tehjas...

What I am saying is that when it's exclusively a representative democracy there are many problems which can be averted with a direct democracy model.

What model did the business world? representative or direct? you can see that first and foremost there is the direct feedback from the consummers, and of course some mega funds are representative in structure, but mostly, it's 1 share = 1 vote. meaning there is no representative...

Parliament can become the representative of those who pay them higher than their legal wages... look at france, when was the last time the french people had any say on any issue? once every few year a so called new king is elected and there is no legal peaceful way to oppose him (or her).

In a direct democracy, it would have been easier for manu (macron) for example to settle his quest for privatizing the national railways, or his 80km/h road restrictions, or legalize a plant... maybe open street prayers would have been banned... who knows.

The thing you fail to understand is that there can be a constitutional republican framework around direct democracy backed by representative democracy.

the best example is the swimming pool in a small town of france. Why can't the people who will pay for it, the upkeep, enjoy or experience the problems of it, can't have a direct say. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a vote of the locals, to decide if they want it or not.

At the end it comes to a confidence in we the people, and can be extended to the God given right to bear arms, while another fringe, specially the dishonnest scamming authoritarian will always attempt to centralize power through so called representative democracy to foster the interests of their sponsors, at the expense of the general population...

if you want to think deeper, manu, can force his privatization, but what, then the next Monsieur the president can easily reverse it, and nationalize it, and even jail those who have profited in the savage privatization.

for example, would you be proud about owning the water of berlin, if suddently the entire german population is against you?

I don't think so. with a democratic vote the situation is quickly cleared out.

Do you understand better?

what I find interesting is that ultimately an army should be the ultimate mob rules, in the sense that everyone (at least those who have seen attrition) want the best leadership available at each step of the hierarchical structure... lives depend on it !

What I note is that there are more parliaments, but less liberty, democracy and freedom... censorship is spreading, political arrests are expanding, the media is silent and bought...

if you wanna understand it, look at the media landscape... most knew what hillary and her goons did, and still fully supported it, letting away all decencies for a few quick bucks...

aren't you afraid of the mob, because you try to rule it? you know, I believe you can surf the crowd, but rule it? one day, the backlash... and don't forget in crowd surfing, you can be let drop too...

again, what do you prefer, a 50%+1 of those who cared to vote approval, or a minority deciding, sometimes in the best interest of all, and sometimes only for them...

do you really think that telford could have had happen in a direct democracy? but maybe you believe it's tommy robinson who should be in jail, while the military rapers are at large?

I understand your fears of the mob in the case...