Direct democracy

P - my opponent's paragraph in Round 3 P2) It is not only 80%. It was REPORTEDLY 80% in 2012. Which means it is probably around 90% now, and number will keep growing. Discrimination - action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Obviously, my opponents argument is nonsense, but I will explain anyway. It would be discrimination if I said some MAACs will not have a right to vote. All of them do. If they don't know how to use their right, it is certainly not my system's fault. For example - If person accused of crime has a right to remain silent, but speaks out against himself, is it system's fault? Did someone violate his right? Is he discriminated? - No! P3) Again, not every individual needs to use PC. He can just give his account's password and consent to anyone he thrusts. P4) I don't remember any government being hacked so far. It is however, just as problem within current system as well. Furthermore, there would be reserve servers, of course, so it would only take few hours to fix inability to vote. P5) My opponent is suggesting that entire government in my system would be inactive group of people arguing around, and has not named any reasons why it would be the case. Neither did my opponent named any reason people who are making trade agreements would perform worse. P6) No; This means, if voters are pleased - same people will rule. If voters are not pleased - rulers will change. Crisis affects negatively each government, My opponent has not shown that it would have greater effect in proposed system, and therefore that part is irrelevant to the debate. P7)My opponent has not shown how size of the country/issues makes proposed system less well-working. Within the proposed system, government can easily decide if it will bomb the Syria or not, or if it will raise the milk tax or not. Furthermore, American government's decisions about the middle east are proven to be bad decisions. Take current situation in Iraq for example - It would be impossible for situation to be worse then it is if America was not interfering. (Aside from this debate, it is common sense that arming weaker side in war will make even greater war; American government's goal in the middle east was always divide and conquer) P8) It is much easier to blackmail few congressman, then thousands of voting MAACs. Blackmail argument goes in favor of my system. Bullying hundreds of people(voting MAACs, who obviously have some influence and supporters) is much less worth and much riskier then doing robberies. P9) Again, people would not vote on what they have no idea about, because everyone can see what they voted for. They would simply thrust experts in each particular area. If for example, someone has 237 election points, he might give some other person that he thrusts 95 election points, so that person would also have voting right. This is why number of voting MAACs would be high. P10) Knowing person is not problem when you can see what each particular person voted for. Not the very best person would always get elected. This is case in every system. It can only help if people can check for what their representative voted for. It is impossible for person who doesn't want to be in congress to end up in congress, he can just give away his election points. In order to enter congress, person needs to have hundreds of thousands election points. How can person who doesn't know what he is supposed to do get so much election points? - He can't Conclusion: I rebutted all Con's arguments.