Direct democracy

Introduction is not relevant but interesting. Why so negative about a fun fact? Seriously, I am in a good mood and I am not sure why Pro is determined to be aggressive and fun-killing for no reason. R1) 80% of Americans is not enough. To have a fair and open election it needs to be hundert percent or at least something around 95%. Currently my opponent is not only perfectly fine with discrimination, he is also encouraging it. It is wrong to believe that people who can't use a computer are stupid or unable to understand the issue. Physically disabled people (blind, paralysed ) are unable to explore the internet as freely as others and Pro's system is therefore not providing a system that supports peoples interests best; it excludes minorities, poor and disabled people. How can he claim he knows all the reasons for not using a computer? Just imagine the flood of law suits against discrimination and their costs. As a computer science major I know exactly how the limits to a sever can be set and how easy they can be disabled. I provided examples how this is happening every day while Pro himself made the unqualified assumption. R2) It really shows a lack of political knowledge to believe that a country does not need to be guided and "ruled". This is not about misusing the power this about being able to do the day-to-day task-load of a government. A government is not an inactive group of people arguing around, these people work hard to get trading contracts done and constantly react to the changes in the country (e.g. lack of teachers in the education system). The information that congressmen would stay in position if they are not voted out is worse than the current system of making a totally new election. Because it assumes that people actually go and change their votes on a recent basis. This means most of the time (and for years over years) basically the same people would rule and in a crisis everyone panics, throws out the government and the country is hamstrung to act. Like people withdrawing all their money from the banks during some of the 20th century economic crisis and making the situation worse. This system has no chance in big countries (other than Switzerland) that face many diverse problems every day. A reason for Switzerland all-time-neutrality is that a decision takes a lot time there, as not only has the decision be to proposed but also has the community to be informed properly to be able to make an informed decision ("educating the country"). This is not something bad but it is only possible for small countries who's "big issues" are still not closely comparable to the "big issues" of countries like the USA; Do I bomb Syria or do we raise the milk tax by three percent? R3) Just because this is about the US (not mentioned in the introduction and I am not a US citizen so it's not obvious) does not mean basic human behaviour don't apply to Americans. Bulling and Blackmail are as real in America as they are everywhere and Pro's system is encouraging it. Voting for friends and family means there are a lot of people who have no idea about politics. You can't make desicions concerning the financial markets if you are 3-months-elected Engineer that struggles to keep his job (as he might not be Congressmen in a few months) while becoming a finance expert. This is another part of "educating the whole" country - everyone would need to be prepared and that's not realistic with the current economic system. Not to speak about that the average person has around three close friends [3] and (that's a guess of mine) they are likely to share a profession or education level. What a choice for every individual. Again, only famous and/or rich people would be able to actually be known by enough people to get voting rights. Furthermore: How can Pro expect that people down-vote people they don't know. If they vote for friends and family they know nothing of the other congressmen apart from them voting for what they thought was right in probably one case. This is not telling sufficiently, whether the congressmen makes a good job overall. Good people are as unable to be recognized as the other way round. You would fill a congress with people who have no idea how they got their, what they are supposed to do and probably with people who don't want to be there. There wouldn't be any politicians in politics. I think I have shown why Pro's system sure means well but will fail facing reality. [3] http://curiosity.discovery.com...